Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 June 21
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 20 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 22 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
June 21
editNotable deaths of atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
editAre there any articles on notable deaths of atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki besides Midori Naka and Keiko Sonoi? Who were the highest ranking government and military official during the bombing? KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- The search Hiroshima incategory:"1945 deaths" finds some. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- For Hiroshima, this lists "the Mayor, the President of the central Japan district, the Commander of the city" and "a Korean prince who had been stationed in Hiroshima in the capacity of an officer". The mayor was Senkichi Awaya, the Korean prince most likely Yi U, the rest I was not able to identify. Brandmeistertalk 09:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- The mayor of Nagasaki in August 1945 was Tokichi Okada Japanese Wikipedia article. Per that article, he survived the bombing and worked hard in the rescue efforts, but died by suicide three years later. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Muhammad and the Bible
editFor the article Muhammad and the Bible, I'd like, if possible, some good WP:RS (Oxbridge and the like) that has bothered to comment on stuff like "The name Muhammad does not occur in the Bible" and "Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible, because he was born after it was written." Non-theological views, I guess. And if there are good sources for Jewish and other views outside Islam/Christianity, that'd be good too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- How many Arabic words appear in the Bible? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on which translation you are using. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps this falls under Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue (or what in London we might say was from the Department of the Bleeding Obvious)? Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, but at one point I put "The name Muhammad does not occur in the Bible" in the article, and it has been removed, so the onus is on me. Hence Oxford-don is desired. I'd like to put a "Outside theology" section at the top. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I see your problem. Not Oxbridge but from the Universitas Gadjah Mada in sunny Indonesia: IS MUHAMMAD MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE? which gives some Islamic perspectives on Biblical verses believed to prophesy the coming of Muhammad (in rather the same way that Christians use the Old Testament "Advent texts"). I'll have another look later on, lunch is calling! Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Islamic perspectives are not lacking in the article. Not surprising, it's mostly "their thing". Per your link "Christ's coming is foretold in the Old Testament in many different places.", that source is bit theological too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Point taken, but nothing without a theological agenda found.
- Note that some Muslims believe that a prophesy by Jesus about Ahmed (i.e. Muhammad) originally appeared in the Gospels but was later edited out by Christians: "It is expressly said in the Koran, that when it was first revealed, the name Ahmed appeared in the gospels; and we know that it is not to be found there now..." [1] This may be the reason for your edits being deleted. Alansplodge (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's in there, Muhammad_and_the_Bible#John_14:16-17. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Islamic perspectives are not lacking in the article. Not surprising, it's mostly "their thing". Per your link "Christ's coming is foretold in the Old Testament in many different places.", that source is bit theological too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I see your problem. Not Oxbridge but from the Universitas Gadjah Mada in sunny Indonesia: IS MUHAMMAD MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE? which gives some Islamic perspectives on Biblical verses believed to prophesy the coming of Muhammad (in rather the same way that Christians use the Old Testament "Advent texts"). I'll have another look later on, lunch is calling! Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, but at one point I put "The name Muhammad does not occur in the Bible" in the article, and it has been removed, so the onus is on me. Hence Oxford-don is desired. I'd like to put a "Outside theology" section at the top. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- When is it alleged to have been removed, relative to when Islam was founded? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- If the Qur'an says "that when it was first revealed, the name Ahmed appeared in the gospels; and we know that it is not to be found there now", presumably it was before the foundation of Islam, or the Qur'an would have a prediction of its coming removal, instead of stating that it had already been removed. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- That quote didn't come from the Qu'ran but from a 19th century commentary. The surah in question is 61:6: 'And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad."' Alansplodge (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- If the Qur'an says "that when it was first revealed, the name Ahmed appeared in the gospels; and we know that it is not to be found there now", presumably it was before the foundation of Islam, or the Qur'an would have a prediction of its coming removal, instead of stating that it had already been removed. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- When is it alleged to have been removed, relative to when Islam was founded? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here are a couple that popped up in google scholar. (1) Singh, David Emmanuel. Muhammad, "The Prophet like Moses"? Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Fall 2008, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p545-561. 17p. (not free online, request at WP:RX). (Journal of Ecumenical Studies is a peer-reviewed UPenn publication.) (2) Adang, Camilla, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm. Brill, 1996. (Brill Publishers seems fairly academically mainstream (Western academia).) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Something to look at, thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you may do well to cite a complete concordance of the Bible, one of the ones that lists literally every word in a specific translation, e.g. Strong's, which has a list of every appearance of "the" and "of", as well as the more important words, in the King James Version. Obviously the "because" requires a different kind of source, as would anything saying that he does or doesn't appear under some other name, but when we're trying to ascertain whether he appears by name, nothing's better than a complete concordance. My edition of Strong's has nothing between "modest" and "moist" on page 686 and nothing between "mufflers" and "mulberry" on page 700; let me know if you'd like me to provide a complete citation. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- cite a complete concordance of the Bible
- Can we put the whole bible in [2] format? 98.33.89.17 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nyttend backup, that's an interesting idea, but shouldn't such a concordance include Hebrew, koine Greek and whatnot translations? Personally, I'd prefer a secondary source. As an added bonus, according to Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible above (thanks 70.67.) there is a Muslim argument that the good parts have been edited out from the original text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- "shouldn't such a concordance include Hebrew, koine Greek and whatnot translations" Not clear what you mean. Most concordances focus on just one language, although Strong's has the advantage of numbering all the words in the source texts; see [3]. I thought you were trying to source the statement that biblical texts extant today don't include the name of Muhammad, so that's why I was proposing using a concordance: it's a solid resource for the text that it examines, and it doesn't attempt to address other texts. Nyttend backup (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly, that would give a primary sourced "The KJV does not include the name Muhammad", or similar. IMO, that's not very interesting to add, but that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's exactly what I thought you wanted to add. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- It may stick, but I want a history/literature/religion professor saying it/talking about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- According to the introduction of Strong's Concordance, Strong was a religion professor. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- "According to biblical scholar James Strong, the 17th century King James Version of the Bible does not include the name Muhammad." Could be an acceptable addition, but feels meh to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, very meh: such a phrase implies that there is room for doubt. This is a comprehensive concordance tracking every word, and there is absolutely no room for doubt. "Muhammad's name does not appear in the Bible."<ref>citation to Strong</ref> is the way to go if we'd use Strong at all, since it implies no question about the reliability of this highly reliable source, and "does not appear" doesn't address the issue of whether or not Muhammad's name appeared in the autographs. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Even "The 17th century King James Version of the Bible does not include the name Muhammad." (if that's what he concorded) feels meh to me, but that's me. BTW, it just occured to me that when I wrote "translations" above, I meant "versions". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Does "autographs" mean something like "original versions"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- See our Autograph (manuscript) article, although it's heavily weighted toward music. The autographs were the original manuscripts of biblical texts, the physical pieces of parchment/paper/papyrus/whatever on which the biblical authors or their scribes physically wrote. Since errors can creep into manuscripts during the copying process, and since these errors get propagated during further copying (see generation loss) if the later copyist has access only to the later document, the autographs are what really matter because they're guaranteed to represent the author's intentions, unlike later copies. Our Muslim writers' real point is that "Muhammad" or "Ahmed" or whatever appeared in the autographs and that it disappeared in transmission. I wonder if orthodox Islam unambiguously teaches that Christians intentionally removed his name, or if there's an option of believing that it accidentally got left out due to scribal errors? Nyttend backup (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think I saw in the Adang, Camilla, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm. Brill, 1996. that at least someone blamed the Jews. Then of course there's the b-d who deleted the Gospel of Barnabas... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- See our Autograph (manuscript) article, although it's heavily weighted toward music. The autographs were the original manuscripts of biblical texts, the physical pieces of parchment/paper/papyrus/whatever on which the biblical authors or their scribes physically wrote. Since errors can creep into manuscripts during the copying process, and since these errors get propagated during further copying (see generation loss) if the later copyist has access only to the later document, the autographs are what really matter because they're guaranteed to represent the author's intentions, unlike later copies. Our Muslim writers' real point is that "Muhammad" or "Ahmed" or whatever appeared in the autographs and that it disappeared in transmission. I wonder if orthodox Islam unambiguously teaches that Christians intentionally removed his name, or if there's an option of believing that it accidentally got left out due to scribal errors? Nyttend backup (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, very meh: such a phrase implies that there is room for doubt. This is a comprehensive concordance tracking every word, and there is absolutely no room for doubt. "Muhammad's name does not appear in the Bible."<ref>citation to Strong</ref> is the way to go if we'd use Strong at all, since it implies no question about the reliability of this highly reliable source, and "does not appear" doesn't address the issue of whether or not Muhammad's name appeared in the autographs. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- "According to biblical scholar James Strong, the 17th century King James Version of the Bible does not include the name Muhammad." Could be an acceptable addition, but feels meh to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- According to the introduction of Strong's Concordance, Strong was a religion professor. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- It may stick, but I want a history/literature/religion professor saying it/talking about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's exactly what I thought you wanted to add. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly, that would give a primary sourced "The KJV does not include the name Muhammad", or similar. IMO, that's not very interesting to add, but that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- "shouldn't such a concordance include Hebrew, koine Greek and whatnot translations" Not clear what you mean. Most concordances focus on just one language, although Strong's has the advantage of numbering all the words in the source texts; see [3]. I thought you were trying to source the statement that biblical texts extant today don't include the name of Muhammad, so that's why I was proposing using a concordance: it's a solid resource for the text that it examines, and it doesn't attempt to address other texts. Nyttend backup (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nyttend backup, that's an interesting idea, but shouldn't such a concordance include Hebrew, koine Greek and whatnot translations? Personally, I'd prefer a secondary source. As an added bonus, according to Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible above (thanks 70.67.) there is a Muslim argument that the good parts have been edited out from the original text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you may do well to cite a complete concordance of the Bible, one of the ones that lists literally every word in a specific translation, e.g. Strong's, which has a list of every appearance of "the" and "of", as well as the more important words, in the King James Version. Obviously the "because" requires a different kind of source, as would anything saying that he does or doesn't appear under some other name, but when we're trying to ascertain whether he appears by name, nothing's better than a complete concordance. My edition of Strong's has nothing between "modest" and "moist" on page 686 and nothing between "mufflers" and "mulberry" on page 700; let me know if you'd like me to provide a complete citation. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Something to look at, thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- It would not be appropriate to cite a lack of the name Muhammad in Strong's Concordance as "According to Strong, the name Muhammad does not appear in the Bible." That's textbook OR. As for the broader "he was born after it was written," I mean, yes, we know that, but the cornerstone of the argument is surely that some of the prophecies refer to him, because prophecies by nature foretell the future. I do think we would need an affirmative source of some kind that states "most Christians don't think the Christian Bible talks about Muhammad." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- That is the cornerstone of the argument, but it would be nice to be able to add a well-reffed historians perspective. I have no idea what most Christians think of the notion, maybe they agree with Luther. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, Mohammedans argue that Abraham was a Muslim (the word means "one who submits", as "Islam" means "submission"), even though he lived thousands of years before the Prophet. 92.8.216.60 (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Which is just Muslims attempting to use Arabic meanings for English words. The ENGLISH words Islam and Muslim don't have those meanings, the Arabic words they are derived from do. --Khajidha (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is not so much a linguistic claim as a religious or spiritual one. Compare the somewhat similar Christian doctrine of the Church invisible. --Trovatore (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Let's not forget that there are 128 ways to spell 'Mohammed'. For instance, the famous boxer used 'Muhammad'.Hayttom (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Which is just Muslims attempting to use Arabic meanings for English words. The ENGLISH words Islam and Muslim don't have those meanings, the Arabic words they are derived from do. --Khajidha (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, Mohammedans argue that Abraham was a Muslim (the word means "one who submits", as "Islam" means "submission"), even though he lived thousands of years before the Prophet. 92.8.216.60 (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)